Malaria Mondays and a Blast From the Past

Today is "Malaria Monday" for me. For the next three weeks I'll be taking the antimalarial drug Lariam for a test drive to see if I have any negative side-effects. As the nurse who proscribed me the pills said, "if you start seeing pink elephants and no one else is, we'll need to talk." Apparently the drug can cause a small percentage of people to have "night terrors" and other hallucinations. Depressed people aren't supposed to take it. Only happy thoughts for me this month!

This weekend I came across the Internet Archive, a site that archives old and extinct websites. I ran a search and guess what, I found my old blog! Unfortunately not all of the posts were saved, which means that my very first posts are gone forever as far as I can tell. But it was still nice to see that I could have some access to it, especially the links that I collected during my project.

Live BBC Interview

I just came upon this BBC interview of a group of Congolese from the Katanga. It's interesting because it's a group interview conducted in real-time with questions coming in via the Internet from all over the world. Similarly to the much hyped YouTube US presidential debate, it brings a new perspective to the issue at hand, the then upcoming DRC national elections, by presenting questions not normally asked by reporters. However, I think the most significant aspect is the real interaction between interviewers and the interviewees. I liked the realization by the Congolese interviewees that they were able to address the entire world, and that the world was concerned with their problems. I'd like to set something up during my trip with locals and friends and family back home. It'd be a real kick to find out the similarities and differences between sides.

On "Saving" Africa

It is fairly commonplace both in academic circles and political polemics to argue over the merit, motivations, and benefits (or consequences) of “Western” involvement and interest in Africa. I just came across a recent incarnation of this debate, with different sides taking aim at the recent “trendy-ness” of humanitarian work in Africa. Attention paid to Africa by celebrities such as Bono and heads of state like Blair have supposedly created a craze on US college campuses over numerous charitable efforts to help the disadvantaged of that continent. “Stop Trying to ‘Save’ Africa” through self-involved and self-interested projects, the Washington-post op-ed asserts. Yet at least one blogger (and more looking at the comments) thinks that more attention paid to the issues facing Africa is better than no attention at all.

From where I stand, it’s a complicated and nuanced question. Personally, I’d like to be able to admit that I’m a passive and objective observer. But it would be useless for me to try to ignore my perspective, one that fits closely with the (recent) college do-gooder profile that the Washington post article critiques. How dare we (I) presume to know anything about anything? And yet, isn’t there something to be said for idealists who hope to work for justice and humanity, even if it means they themselves benefit? I know many college students work on these issues at least in part because of the attention they get from other students, or simply because it makes them feel better about themselves. But self-interested incentives nearly always play a part in motivation to any action, and so why not for a good cause? It’s a dangerous line to be sure, but not one that cannot create beneficial situations.

Given this, it’s all the more important for me to constantly re-evaluate my motivations and goals, especially for the trip I will soon be taking to Africa. Am I cognizant of my role in my environment, or am I ignorant, or worse, unwilling to acknowledge ignorance? I don’t think it’s fair to say that I am doing what I am doing for entirely altruistic purposes- how often is this ever the case- and so understanding what my real motivations are will be vital to avoiding some of the pitfalls of orientalism and Ameri-centrism.

Ultimately, I’m confident that I can have a positive impact on the communities I visit while also gaining valuable experience and knowledge. I’ve studied non-Western colonial history enough to carry a sense of cynicism when it comes to “saving” anyone, and so I don’t pretend to be god’s gift to Africa. Instead, I hope to help as well as receive help, in the hopes that my experience will allow me to increase my impact as a global citizen in the future.

On a somewhat unrelated note, interesting article found through an interesting blog.

Lately I've been delving into more academic texts about the status of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in Africa. Most of the stuff I've read so far has been at least a couple of years old, but it's still been very informative and somewhat inspiring. Take this for instance. It talks about setting up a low cost non-profit ISP in rural Uganda. Sounds like a great project, if a little too over my head to think about doing myself. Nonetheless, I admire their drive. I am also trying to get my hands on the entire issue of Telematics and Informatics from February 2004, which is all about ICT in Africa. I found one of the included articles about a blogger survey in Kamapala which I might try to build on when I'm over there.

Finally, I also found some newer stuff going on. I've never heard of the One Laptop Per Child Foundation before, but if their idea for a low-cost, low-impact computer is viable, then it sounds pretty cool!

An update about the project

Entrepreneurism vs. Aid in Africa

"You're going to give starving kids in Africa computers? What are they going to do with it, eat it? Maybe you can give them some CD players too." This was the response from my brother about my idea of bringing over a number of computer laptops to Africa with me in the fall. It was a typically zippy remark from him, bringing to light the utter idiocy of what I had previously considered an clever plan. All of a sudden all I could say was, "Uh, yeah."

My brother's comments cut to the heart of a larger debate over what is really needed to bring the African continent out of its abject poverty and closer to the type of affluence that we are used to here in the US (although perhaps some might cringe at the prospect of having the world act with the same extravagantly wasteful abandon we do here). It is the same debate that has received some amount of media and blogopshere attention with the occurance of the TEDGlobal conference in Arusha, Tanzania earlier this month. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design. TED is an organization that conducts conferences to bring together entrepreneurial spirits from these three industries in the hope of sharing ideas and resources. TEDGlobal is apparently working to spread this culture of entrepreneurism to help less developed countries. Many African bloggers discussed, covered or attended the conference themselves this past month. Global Voices Online has provided a spread of some of the discussion surrounding the conference, which was altogether positive. I thought a few comments were especially interesting:

Rafiq Philips, from South Africa, summed up the entrepreneurial capitalist spirit the conference seemed to embody with these words: "Screw the handouts to Africa, give us the tools that allow us to solve our own problems."

Soyapi Mumba, a blogger from Malawi, echoed this sentiment:

Before going to TED Global, I kept hearing voices blaming governments for not doing this and that plus several other reasons why African countries cannot prosper unless some one from outside Africa does something.... At TED however, everyone I met was determined to solve Africa’s problems without waiting for governments or donors. So I’ve come back energised and connected to the right community that will hopefully keep me motivated.


The idea of a focus on economic self-improvement is something that Jason Pontin of the New York Times wrote about in his article concerning the TEDGlobal conference in Arusha. He is a bit more ambivalent about what is needed in Africa, noting that there are still many basic needs that can be met much more efficiently and directly through charitable aid than through indirect economic incentives. He even touches a little on what my brother was getting at in questioning whether or not it is ethical to focus on technology and capitalist enterprise when people are starving.

Ultimately Pontin comes to the conclusion that both economic/technological investment and more basic aid will be needed to help Africa. I personally think I am drawn to the technological side because it seems to provide a sense of normalicy to a place that is in many ways quite different (I imagine) from anything I have experienced. It could be that I think it is more decent, less degrading, less pitying to help people understand and utilize a technology, rather than simply provide a service or give them money or aid. The relationship seems more symmetric, the pay-offs greater for everyone. Perhaps I am just convincing myself of my own righteousness, but I believe that the attempt to facilitate the use of technology in Africa is not futile. In fact, I see the potential as much more helpful and hopeful than the altogether mixed success US aid has had in Africa thus far.

Nonetheless, it is refreshing to have someone like my brother putting things into perspective... at least every once in a while.

Science, Technology and Socio-Cultural Perspective

Reflecting on some of the topics I nearly wrote my undergrad thesis on, I recently recalled that one of the things that initially interested me most about Africa was the interesting consequences of convoluting modern technology and science with Euro-American cultural bias in the context of colonial/postcolonial Africa. What so often has passed for "science" introduced in Africa by Europeans (and Americans) has also had implicit or overt socio-political meanings as well. In some cases this has created an ambivalence towards medicine and science (perhaps less so technology, although often this goes together with the other two). There is an incredible advantage for Africa in adopting new technologies and scientific and medical methods. However, the socio-cultural aspect of these adoptions play a somewhat complicated yet influential role in the benefit provided.

By coincidence, I just picked up on a GVO link to a blogger who attended a recent social activist conference in Nairobi dealing with the use of mobile phone technology. This blogger pointed out the lack of African involvement on the technology side:


The issue of how to deal with the ownership of technology and technological expertise was also discussed. All the technologists where white and tended to be white males. Why are African technologists not involved in development technology? And technology in general. These questions remain to be answered but definitely something that crops up repeatedly in any discussion on technology in Africa whether mobile phones or the internet.


Hmmm... how to address this...

Wild Frontiers

A conversation with an old acquaintance earlier this week sparked a series of meditations on some strangely connected topics. We were talking about the “lawlessness” of the internet, with its disjointed structure and relative lack of overriding governance. Hackers, thieves, and disreputable people roam the web, making it a modern day wild (wild) west. The two features that truly popularized the internet, porn and ripped music, reveal how lawlessness has characterized the internet phenomenon since its popular beginnings.

Yet, how long will this last? Is the wild wild web, just like its 19th century predecessor, an ephemeral phenomenon? Even now issues of government oversight and internet neutrality seem to hint at the solidifying trajectory of the web. Governments such as China, Iran and Singapore seek authoritarian control over how the internet is used, and by whom. At the same time in the US and other capitalist countries regional and national internet service providers are lobbying for more control over access and marketability of the web. While these two efforts might have divergent goals and motives, they essentially signal the effort to control and manipulate this heretofore relatively open space (notwithstanding the obvious inherent private, elitest nature of access that cannot escape noting). I believe that there is still amazing potential for the internet to evolve into a tool that continues to help inform, educate, and facilitate socio-political equality. However, I fear that there is also the very real threat that this wild frontier will be destroyed by an overbearing urge to control.

* * *

On a seemingly divergent note- but one that shares a similar theme- I recently finished Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, a revisionist historian’s (Dee Brown) look at the taming of the wild west from a Native American (or Native Indian, or just plain Indian, depending on who you are talking to) perspective. This book, first published in the 1970s, covers the American government’s conquest over the native peoples who originally inhabited this land. Proceeding both in chronological order and (roughly) by tribe, it is in essence the same story of greed-induced deceit, unimaginable cruelty, and devastating tragedy told in more than a dozen different contexts.



Putting aside the remarkably saddening picture the book paints of the interaction between whites and natives, an important lesson gleaned is the role socio-cultural perspective plays on interaction between different groups. In this story the idea of ownership and productivity play an incredibly important part in the conflict. These two pinnacles of capitalist idealogy serve as the backbone of misunderstanding between inhabitant and invader. From the native perspective, land was something that could not be bought or sold at any price. It did not belong to anyone in the sense that it could be bartered with or commodified. Inhabitants had a responsibility to the land, to ensure that it continued to sustain those who depended on it. This turned out to be a much more ecologically forward-looking perspective than that of the white settlers and government officials who came to dispossess these native inhabitants. What US government and white prospectors, farmers and merchants saw was the misuse of valuable natural resources by an ignorant group of people. Progress, the watchword of the 19th century industrialization era, dictated that land that wasn’t maximized for humans’ short-term benefits was ipso facto a waste. From the perspective of these Anglo invaders, the land’s bountiful resources were there to be exploited, and the land itself destined to be possessed, bought and sold.

Whites’ perspective on land and land use, along with their own greed for wealth, informed their opinions of the native tribes, who they saw as lazy, ignorant and undeserving of the land. The pressure to attain this land and properly utilize it necessitated the formulation of a doctrine, embodied in the 19th cenury idea of Manifest Destiny, which lent justification to the dispossession of Indian land by Anglos. The psychology needed to accompany these devastating and inhumane acts sprang from the differences in understanding of the relationship between civilization and nature. Hence, at the same time during which the worst of these atrocities were being committed by the US government, the development of the stereotype of Indian savagery also came into focus. This perspective can best be summed up in the words, later popularized, by US Army General Philip Sheriden to his Comanche prisoners: “The only good Indians I ever saw were dead” (Brown, 170. Interestingly, the idea of the “noble savage” only came about after this period when native tribes no longer posed any real threat and the memory of the “wild west” began to be romanticized by nostalgic whites).

The psychology of domination in the mid to late 19th century American West draws many similarities to imperial and colonial ideology exhibited by Europeans throughout much of the rest of the world at the same time. This was especially the case in Africa, where the conquest of the entire continent was taking place, and the introduction of Europeans and European culture was just beginning to impact indigenous tribes. In many ways, I believe Africa served as the European “wild west,” a vast expanse of “uninhabited” land, potentially rich in natural resources and needing only to be cleaned out and cleaned up. Religious conversion and salvation also played an important role in both conquests, and helped form the ideology of superiority needed to justify the conquest. Ultimately, the colonial psychology, much like the psychology of Manifest Destiny, eventually condoned incredible atrocity- today we would call it genocide- against native cultures, some of whom were driven to near extinction.

* * *

Looking back at the stories of 19th century imperial and colonial conquest helps bring perspective to today, where we continue to wrestle with issues of cross-cultural conflict. At the end of my diatribes I often ask myself where I fit into this picture. Am I working to deconstruct or perpetuate the present-day heirs of these ideologies, neo-imperialism and ethnocentrism? Does my well-intentioned belief in the positive power of technology and the internet merely mimic the well-intentioned beliefs of former religious and secular zealots who, through the imposition of their world views, destroyed the social and cultural fabric of many an unfortunate indigenous group? What am I doing but perpetuating Progress with a capital ‘P,’ facilitating the entry of previously unaffected people into a consumerist society, where their thoughts will be increasingly distorted by a degredated Euro/Ameri-centric capitalist frame. Do I want to perpetuate the tragedy of the American Indian, who have long exhibited the scars of forced assimilation and continue to be the foremost forgotten victims of American success? I believe there are some important differences, yet I acknowledge that there is a slippery slope when it comes to righting legacies of injustice in a modern world. Having a personal connection to the plight of the American Indian, and a significant interest in the search for post-colonial equality and justice, I find the crisscrossing of historical and sociological narratives that inform these situations distinctly interesting. Three different stories of wild frontiers- American, African and virtual- coalesce disjointedly in a disjointed world.

Two Bad Eggs in a Pod

Forgive me for mixing metphors, but I thought it was an apt description of the recent
meeting between Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and Iran's Mahmood Ahmadinejad. Apparently the two politically isolated leaders are reaching out to each other in an attempt build some sort of unity in the face of Western criticism. Personally, this only delegitimizes Ahmadinejad's position in my mind. Despite his populist rhetoric, Mugabe typifies the corrupt leadership that so much of Africa has suffered under since decolonization.

It's amazing (and terrifying) to see the chaotic currents of the modern colonial project continue to swirl around us today. The words of Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, and other products of the backlash to Western imperialism continue to rely heavily on the anger of colonization. Despite their despotism, these leaders' words garner them with some small sense of legitimacy simply because those who they rail against have devalued their own rhetoric. Africans, Persians, Arabs, Indians all simply yearn for a justice and equality that seems suspiciously absent in their lives. Yet in frustration they often turn to ideologues- and their impostors- who promise to hold the answer to Western dominance. Hyperbole becomes truth as the complexity of modernity is paved over with sound bites and simple answers.

And who says this confusion merely arises in Harare, Mumbai and the West Bank? What about the millions of Americans who would rather blame Islam for terrorism, or who think the conflict between Shi'ites and Sunis (or Hutus and Tutsis or Serbs and Croats) is an immutable conflict between perpetual enemies? We glaze over the complexities of the modern world and fall for the same generalities that create misunderstanding, mistrust and animosity between people all over the world.

I guess what I am getting at (if there is any point to my ramblings) is that we need a more comprehensive understanding of the factors at work in the societies we find ourselves in. Culprits like Mugabe and Ahmadinejad use frustration and misunderstanding to fuel their ambitions. Their solutions ring hollow, but as long as their claims of injustice are substantiated by the actions of our world leaders, they will continue to wield legitimacy. The responsibility is with us to hold our leaders and ourselves accountable to our actions. We have a chance at fixing injustice only by understanding its dimensions.